G.D.Yudhbir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4383 Del

9
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                       +       W.P.(C)No.5740/2010

                                Date of Decision : 17th September, 2010
%

      G.D.YUDHBIR SINGH                     ..... Petitioner
                    Through : Col. S.R. Kalkal, Adv.

                      versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                 ..... Respondents
                     Through : Dr. Sarbjeet Sharma, Adv.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                  NO
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?                 NO

3.      Whether the judgment should be                         NO
        reported in the Digest?

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

aggrieved by the posting order dated 18th May, 2010 directing

his transfer from 22nd Bn ITBP posted at Delhi to 30th Bn ITBP

which is posted in the State of Uttarakhand. The available

record shows that the petitioner has submitted representations

to the respondents informing them repeatedly that he was

suffering from depression and orthopedic problems and was

under treatment at the AIIMS Hospital which requires his

physical presence at Delhi. The petitioner had also stated that

the said treatment could not be available at the place of his

posting.

As no heed was paid by the respondents to these

representations, he was constrained to file the present writ

petition.

2. Notice in the matter was issued by us on 25 th August,

2010. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the respondents

has produced a copy of the order passed only on 16th

September, 2010 issued by the Directorate General of ITBP

stating that the petitioner's posting by the order dated 18th

May, 2010 has been cancelled. This order is taken on record.

3. The above narration would show that the petitioner has

been harassed and constrained to file the present writ petition

unwarrantedly. Valuable judicial time has been expended on

the matter which lay clearly within the competence and

jurisdiction of the respondents. The petitioner was dealt with

unfairly and no heed was paid to his representations. The

respondents were bound to have considered the

representations of the petitioner expeditiously which has not

been done.

4. In this background, the petitioner is entitled to be

compensated by costs which are quantified to `10,000/-. The

costs shall be paid to the petitioner along with his salary for the

month of October, 2010.

5. At this stage, Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for

the respondents vehemently submits that the moment he

brought the matter to the notice of the concerned officials,

they were persuaded to examine the issue which resulted in

the passing of the order dated 16th September, 2010 and in this

background he prays for waiver of costs. We are not inclined to

accept such prayer having regard to the difficulties being faced

by the petitioner as well as the harassment he must have

undergone on receipt of such posting order and by the

non-consideration of the representations. However, having

regard of the fact that the respondents have now taken into

consideration the facts placed by the petitioner and have

passed an order, we reduce the costs to `5,000/- which shall be

paid as directed above.

6. In view of the order dated 16th September, 2010, no

further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition.

The same is disposed of in the above terms.

6. Dasti.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2010 aj